New Delhi, Oct 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi VK Saxena, who is also the Chairperson of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), to file an affidavit explaining which officers of the DDA should be held liable for cutting trees in Delhi’s Ridge Forest area in violation of court orders
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra were hearing a batch of contempt petitions raising concern over large-scale tree felling in and around the Delhi Ridge Forest.
The Court observed that these trees were felled despite earlier orders to preserve such trees to protect the pristine nature of the area.
According to directions passed earlier by the Apex Court, these trees could not be cut without the Court’s permission.
Contempt of court cases was initiated by the top court against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) over illegal tree felling in the Delhi Ridge area.
The matter pertains to suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the Apex Court against the Vice-Chairman of the DDA, Subhasish Panda.
The DDA was hauled up by the Apex Court after over a hundred trees in the Delhi Ridge Forest were cut by the authority in violation of court orders.
The Court had also taken strong exception to an apparent attempt to cover up the role of Delhi LG in felling the trees.
A Division Bench led by Justice AK Oka even demanded an explanation from the DDA on whether it had cut the trees based on the LG’s directives or whether the decision was made independently.
Two different benches of the Supreme Court were hearing related but separate aspects of the contempt case against the DDA.
Justice Chandrachud therefore transferred the case to his court.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan appearing on behalf of the DDA submitted that the two items can be tagged.
The CJI then clarified that Justice Gavai and Justice Oka was hearing two petitions and they felt this issue could be heard by us (CJI led Bench).
The petitions before them shall not be disturbed, We are only on this controversy, the CJI said.
Amicus submited how the overlap happened on the same facts.
Justice Chandrachud said that the court will hear only on the limited issue of this contempt
Gopal Sankarnarayanan then said that there were 2 cases, MC Mehta and Godavarman.
One is air pollution matter which was before Justice Oka today and then there was the sealing issue which is here.
Senior Advocate Gopal further said that the forest issue is an all-India issue. There are different sets of matter. Application filed by different individuals, MC Mehta 1985 cases are exclusively for Delhi and NCR.
Gopal S said, “DDA filed an application in MC Mehta case seeking permission for tree cutting. It was dismissed..and DDA never told the court that all trees were already cut.”
CJI asked, “How many trees?”
Gopal S said, “1200 Trees!… in Godavarman case it was held that there should be no diversion of land by DDA.. in my view there is no contempt of the orders in godavarman case, the Senior Advocate said.
The Court then sought an explanation as to how these orders were flouted and which officers were responsible for the same.
“Let the affidavit be personally filed by Chairperson of the DDA (Delhi LG) with information which is with the chairperson of DDA …
The affidavit shall explain how the felled timber has been dealt with and steps taken to attribute accountability to the officials who were in breach of directions of this court.
Let this compliance affidavit be filed before the next date of hearing.
List next Tuesday (October 22),” the Court said.
The Bench said that it needs an explanation on whether the LG (DDA chairperson) was aware that trees were cut in violation of court orders, and whether any steps have been taken against erring officers or to restore the ecological damage caused due to the tree felling.
“What steps have been taken to identify officers responsible for a willful act of suppression that felling of trees had actually taken place without intimation to the court? CJI asked.
“Whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken against officers, and whether criminal action should be taken against all officials for the breach of binding directions of the court?
“If the chairperson of DDA is of the view that initiation of criminal prosecution is taken up, we expect such action is taken without waiting for directions of this court,” the Court added.
Representing LG Saxena, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani said, “How can LG be involved? He is not the final authority.. he only said please expedite this process on February 3 … No one is obligated to hear me. I can show that” Jethmalani submitted.
Advocate ADN Rao, Amicus Curiae in the matter said that several queries have been answered during today’s hearing.
The Court replied that it would hold the LG personally accountable for any statement made in his affidavit.
The CJI added that the Court is expecting that errant officers of the DDA be held accountable.
“If this time, it gets repeated, he will take personal responsibility for this. We don’t want the vice chairperson to tell us anything.”
“We want the highest authority to tell us. Before we take action, we want action to be taken by DDA – which means, disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings and attaching of accountability,” Justice Chandrachud said.
